jimrhods23

"including Facebook’s sharing of data with the dark arts firm Cambridge Analytica—and ever-growing worries about the tech giants’ monopoly powers."

We only care about this because it helped Trump win the election. Ask yourself this: If this helped Hillary win, would you care? I'm guessing we wouldn't even be hearing about it now and anyone that mentioned it would be laughed at/silenced.

Our privacy always matters, regardless of the politics of the day. When a Democrat becomes president, these discussions will most likely go away.

Zuckerberg certainly doesn't care about your privacy. He only wants to please the masses so he can go back to ruling the world.

"There is also a third option, which would be just as momentous: workplace democracy. By which I mean, we should ensure that tech workplaces are governed in accord with basic democratic norms and ideals"

Why do tech workers need to have a union? They are paid more than most jobs in the world and can pick/choose where they work.

Unions will only limit the good employee's pay and allow the lazy/mediocre to take over. Not to mention making it impossible for a small company to survive, because of the regulations that are involved with unionization.

It's great for changing the landscape to mostly large companies and the government..which is what happens in Countries like Sweden and Norway...but terrible for people that want to start their own company.

"There's a cultural difference here. In a culture of collaboration that experience is simulated for the group to grow mutually."

So, to 'grow mutually', we need to use ideas that never work or will take the project down a path of failure? This does not foster growth or success.

I want the best ideas to win, if it's mine or from an inexperienced colleague.

"The difference is motivation of growth vs money."

You can try bad ideas on your own time If you are working on a project and being paid for it, I don't really know how it doesn't have some motivation for money.

"I never said I won't listen. I value people who focus on collaboration because I can trust they have a stake in our mutual growth. This is not a feeling rather a thought."

Teaching you the proper way is focusing on mutual growth, so you will be successful in future projects that might involve the same problem.

"No, I credit the people who create the bias around them in everyday interactions. Bottom line is that present day moments are not made up of stereotypes. People are responsible for their behaviors and attitudes."

So you don't want to be told what to do and you have no problem with a company ushering out more experienced developers and replacing them with ones that are cheaper and younger.

While people are responsible for their behaviors and attitudes, I can't imagine if you were in the same situation you wouldn't be resentful. This is because you are young. In 15-20 years, I think your attitude and outlook on life will be much different.

There is also evidence that the gender pay gap is due to other circumstances:

-women not negotiating what they are actually worth in terms of pay -women taking less risks and less demanding jobs after having children.

"Oppress my voice and project what they think I should be (super-ego acting like a child)"

I'm in my 40s and am managing a team of developers in their 20s. What may sound like oppression many times is a desire to not go down a path to failure that I can see from a mile away, but someone with less experience may not even understand.

My way isn't always correct either. If you can back something up with great supporting evidence, you win. I find that many people now don't feel they need to back anything up with evidence and any sort of criticism is seen as oppression.

"Interact with me like an individual and genuinely place interest in the mutual growth"

I feel like if you don't run into someone who fits this motive, you won't even listen to what they have to say because you feel like you are being oppressed.

"Threatened by my existence (ego in survival mode)"

You can thank companies that fire the people with experience and hire the youthful and cheap for this.

Don't accidentally delete the entire table because you left off a WHERE clause.

This is so simplistic. Yeah, it might be better if we had less cars on the road, but the US is very large and not that easy to traverse without cars.

Anyone can slap down some code and get something to marginally work from a tutorial they read online.

The skill (and subsequent value) comes in when priorities change, things need to be refactored, and you need an experienced developer to come up with a solution that works well.

"When you do your post-mortem, focus on actionable outcomes rather than placing blame. Because ultimately anyone can screw up at any time."

I disagree with this. You need to place some sort of blame and focus on actionable outcomes.

Anyone can make this mistake, but with important data, there are some people that really shouldn't be handling it and they need to know why, which is where the blame comes in. This is the only way to resolve the issue.

"I was once a tech lead of a team where the architect had been berating and criticizing a team member for weeks over something he thought should take a day"

As I've gotten more experience as a developer, I've realized that most tasks take longer than I used to estimate..usually because I want to come up with a long-term solution and not just hack something together with no testing.

"I'd argue that for easily digitized works, there's no such thing as scarcity."

Since AI can't create great pieces of art or digital works in a short amount of time, there still is scarcity.

Do you think if Uber suddenly was forced to make all of these drivers employees with benefits, that everyone would continue to have a job?

"Quitting her job meant she could spend more time with her daughter and offset some of her childcare expenses, but it also required her to make lifestyle changes"

There are many women that have this same sentiment. Which is why there will always be a pay disparity. I don't think it's a bad thing, but it's not related to sexism or women intentionally getting paid less.

It feels weird that I have to argue for safety and the scientific process in a forum for supposed intelligent people.

It's very anti-intellectual.

It might not work because it hasn't been completely tested. The human is the test and people may die during the testing process.

Why should anyone go to jail over this? The startup was just testing it out and the person was willing to take the risk. They might not have even known that it would kill the patient.

When a patient dies, the family will most likely try to sue the company that created the treatment. What company would ever take a risk like this?

The bright side is that the human testers in China will lead to better care in the rest of the world.

With the amount of lawsuits in the US for people that are willingly harming themselves or abusing drugs: Cigarette companies still getting sued for smokers dying of cancer..even though it's been known for 50 years that it causes cancer and Big Pharma getting sued for the Opiod crises means that this will never happen here until we have major tort reform and an assurance that a company can't be sued in any court if someone dies as a result of taking untested treatments.

"It's clear that the current approach to develop new treatments/drugs that requires billions and years or even decades of tests is not fast enough for many people"

It takes years of testing because the risk if health or death is too great. It's foolish to think that allowing anyone to be a human guinea pig for untested/unfinished treatments will result in any less deaths or suffering from a terminal illness.